4 ms·

This is something called "results oriented thinking" it can be very destructive to learning in noise environments (e.g. poker, investing)

EdwardDiego 6y ago
Riding a motorcycle is generally the same as mountaineering or being a criminal - mistakes tend to be very expensive ;)
abduhl 6y ago
Understanding that a mistake is a mistake regardless of the result is literally the opposite of results oriented thinking.
- kazinator 6y ago
  It's the opposite of a strawman version of results-oriented thinking which says that, for instance, 64/16 = 4 is a good result even if it was obtained by crossing out and cancelling the two 6's giving 4/1 = 4. Result-oriented thinking has to include some reflection about whether results are being obtained in a way that is repeatable or will work in other situations.
  - abduhl 6y ago
    I agree that the point is to understand why your actions are either correct or incorrect. Hence why I wrote "understanding" in my post. There is something to be said about the false dichotomy of being either for or against results oriented thinking. As you note, understanding why your thinking is correct is a critical component; however, the best way to understand if your thinking is correct is based on results.
- bernardlunn 6y ago
  Yes, it is process oriented thinking. Focus on doing the right thing not the end result
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  SethTro's comment might be read several ways and they've not clarified whether they support or oppose cautious climbing practices. One explainer of ROT uses poker as an analogy. (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-results-oriented-thinking-in-poker https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-results-oriente...) This is both a poor analogy, if read shallowly (follow a strategy even if there are occasional setbacks), and a possibly useful one (negative outcomes are far more consequential in mountaineering than at the poker table). In cards (or many financial investments) it's possible to amortize risk over many bets --- you're rarely all-in on any one of them. In mountaineering, you're all-in all the time, and an early minor miscalculation or unwise choice may commit you to disaster. In the former case, taking small hits is sensible, in the latter, it's avoiding any extraneous risk thatis the wise move --- luck eventually runs out, and with high stakes, poor odds, and many bets, the daredevil strategy fares poorly. You can of course find similar situations in finance and business. Startups, unlike VCs, are all-in on their specific venture. Funders can hedge bets, founders cannot. In personal finance, there's the question of what size a financial hit a household can stand. For something like 40% of US households, finding funds for an unexpected $400 expense within a month is beyond their means. In a world with a steady rate of $400 shocks possible (medical bills, car repair, towing/impound fees, appliance repair, lawsuit or fines, unemployment, etc.), this means financial ruin is an everpresent looming threat.
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    I can't read his comment as anything but him agreeing with parent, i.e. labeling the parent's quoted text as ROT. I think we're so used to point->counter->point->counter nested trees that we pattern match disagreement even when it's not there.

EdwardDiego 6y ago

Riding a motorcycle is generally the same as mountaineering or being a criminal - mistakes tend to be very expensive ;)

abduhl 6y ago

Understanding that a mistake is a mistake regardless of the result is literally the opposite of results oriented thinking.

kazinator 6y ago
It's the opposite of a strawman version of results-oriented thinking which says that, for instance, 64/16 = 4 is a good result even if it was obtained by crossing out and cancelling the two 6's giving 4/1 = 4. Result-oriented thinking has to include some reflection about whether results are being obtained in a way that is repeatable or will work in other situations.
- abduhl 6y ago
  I agree that the point is to understand why your actions are either correct or incorrect. Hence why I wrote "understanding" in my post. There is something to be said about the false dichotomy of being either for or against results oriented thinking. As you note, understanding why your thinking is correct is a critical component; however, the best way to understand if your thinking is correct is based on results.
bernardlunn 6y ago
Yes, it is process oriented thinking. Focus on doing the right thing not the end result
dredmorbius 6y ago
SethTro's comment might be read several ways and they've not clarified whether they support or oppose cautious climbing practices. One explainer of ROT uses poker as an analogy. (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-results-oriented-thinking-in-poker https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-results-oriente...) This is both a poor analogy, if read shallowly (follow a strategy even if there are occasional setbacks), and a possibly useful one (negative outcomes are far more consequential in mountaineering than at the poker table). In cards (or many financial investments) it's possible to amortize risk over many bets --- you're rarely all-in on any one of them. In mountaineering, you're all-in all the time, and an early minor miscalculation or unwise choice may commit you to disaster. In the former case, taking small hits is sensible, in the latter, it's avoiding any extraneous risk thatis the wise move --- luck eventually runs out, and with high stakes, poor odds, and many bets, the daredevil strategy fares poorly. You can of course find similar situations in finance and business. Startups, unlike VCs, are all-in on their specific venture. Funders can hedge bets, founders cannot. In personal finance, there's the question of what size a financial hit a household can stand. For something like 40% of US households, finding funds for an unexpected $400 expense within a month is beyond their means. In a world with a steady rate of $400 shocks possible (medical bills, car repair, towing/impound fees, appliance repair, lawsuit or fines, unemployment, etc.), this means financial ruin is an everpresent looming threat.
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  I can't read his comment as anything but him agreeing with parent, i.e. labeling the parent's quoted text as ROT. I think we're so used to point->counter->point->counter nested trees that we pattern match disagreement even when it's not there.